Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Ssnake]

Useful suggestions, now Bug 8703.

[Breakthrough7]

- Immediate Suppression functionality (mixed fuse/fast CFF to splash/lower percentage of effective rounds on target/grey out options to prevent player from modifying target dimensions, ROF and tube numbers etc).
- Fire Missions generated by friendly AI (and other party members) during execution phase to be displayed in the Fire Mission Drop Down List and be cancelable.  
- Fire Missions initiated by units that have been designated as having Priority status by the scenario designer to be processed and executed with the same or similar speed as Fire Missions called on Priority Target Reference points.
-M795 HE

side note;
noticed yesterday while browsing the manual that eSim *might be working on Illumination, which was excellent to see.  

[Ssnake]

It's still a long ways off, TBH. The lure is always there, but so is the understanding that a lot of factors need to come together to make it more than just useful for the player's eye and nothing else.

[Captain_Colossus]

i haven't upgraded from 4.161 yet, so if it isn't present in a newer update: add active protection systems and russian afganit to the list of components which can be damaged in the scenario editor (simulating a chance of system failure and/or system has previously spent its bank of countermeasures ).

[Mirzayev]

41 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

and/or system has previously spent its bank of countermeasures ).

APS systems currently have an "ammo" count for number of countermeasures remaining. When this reaches zero, as expected, the system doesn't function.

 

[Captain_Colossus]

2 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

APS systems currently have an "ammo" count for number of countermeasures remaining. When this reaches zero, as expected, the system doesn't function.

 

that's not the point- i am requesting a random chance of these systems not functioning, meaning they still have a random chance to function (rather than non-functioning at all as empty).

[Grenny]

14 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

that's not the point- i am requesting a random chance of these systems not functioning, meaning they still have a random chance to function (rather than non-functioning at all as empty).

There random elemts involved.

- is the intercept succeful

-does the intercept whack a KE round enough to reduce its effect

- does it destroy/trigger the fuse of an HE/HEAT

-does it detonate the HE/HEAT

 

...these are possible outcomes modeled in SB AFAIK

[Captain_Colossus]

it certainly is modeled that way- however,  i request  something which permits a user prescribed chance of not function at all through the entire scenario rather than the system having the rare miss (but still functioning)

[Ssnake]

Yeah, you can do that with the classroom version. For SB Pro PE you're stuck with our best guess.

[Captain_Colossus]

i figured out the workaround- duplicate spawned units in the same location-  for example., primary unit has 80 percent chance of spawn with active protection equipped, secondary unit has 20 percent chance of active protection removed. not too bad.

[DanTDBV]

Wishing for crewable Danish Centurion MK5 2DK and M41 DK1

 

Inspired by this thread in the Mods section

 

I would like to ask what kind of documentation you would need to be able to create the additions to the external model and the crew views of a no interior crewable version of the Centurion MK5 2DK?

 

Also what you would need to be able to create the external model and crew views of a no interior crewable version of the M41 DK1

I have access to this fully operational Centurion MK5 2DK and also to this fully operational M41 DK1

 

 

 

Pictures are framegrabs from a video I shot at Åben Hede last year.

 

I imagine a boatload of pictures, but do you have any preferences for camera settings and focal lengths that makes your work easier.

What kind of sounds would you need for the M41 DK1? I imagine engine sounds but there are probably others than that.

I imagine that you have the Centurion sounds covered.
 

As for the technical specs, details and capacities, that should go through the proper channels. You have a much firmer grasp about that than I do.

 

And of course you also need time and resources. Therefor I am only wishing.

 

Happy Simming

[Grenny]

30 minutes ago, DanTDBV said:

Wishing for crewable Danish Centurion MK5 2DK and M41 DK1

 

Inspired by this thread in the Mods section

 

I would like to ask what kind of documentation you would need to be able to create the additions to the external model and the crew views of a no interior crewable version of the Centurion MK5 2DK?

 

Also what you would need to be able to create the external model and crew views of a no interior crewable version of the M41 DK1

I have access to this fully operational Centurion MK5 2DK and also to this fully operational M41 DK1

 

 

 

Pictures are framegrabs from a video I shot at Åben Hede last year.

 

I imagine a boatload of pictures, but do you have any preferences for camera settings and focal lengths that makes your work easier.

What kind of sounds would you need for the M41 DK1? I imagine engine sounds but there are probably others than that.

I imagine that you have the Centurion sounds covered.
 

As for the technical specs, details and capacities, that should go through the proper channels. You have a much firmer grasp about that than I do.

 

And of course you also need time and resources. Therefor I am only wishing.

 

Happy Simming

That would be a great addition!! hope someone from esim has the time to link up with you!!

[Lumituisku]

Above post makes me wonder if same could be possible with S-tank (Stridsvagn 103)?  I mean, I would be prepared to travel to sweden to Arsenalen and to go quite lenghs to get to you what you need for it.  It is the one vehicle I would really, really love to see in Steelbeast. 

[Ssnake]

You're not alone in this, but precisely because it is so unique it would cost us an absolutely disproportionate amount of time to adapt the AI to it. Not saying that we'd never do it, but right now we have much bigger challenges to master.

[Lumituisku]

19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

You're not alone in this, but precisely because it is so unique it would cost us an absolutely disproportionate amount of time to adapt the AI to it. Not saying that we'd never do it, but right now we have much bigger challenges to master.

Thank you very much for answer. I suspected that something like that might be reason. But then again, it is very hard to see such point of view, when you really wish for something. And yeah, I understand and agree. Thank you. 

[BlackDeath]

Hello 
 

Possilibity to decrease the repair time by a factor of X (decided by the mission designer) when Engineers are around & when they are not.

 

Besides, we lack triggers that can be activated multiple times : unless I am wrong, once a trigger has been activated, we cannot use it again since it stays on by default.

What I mean is "special triggers" which can be turned on (it then activates an event); then is automatically set to 0 ready to activated again to trigger that same event later.

 

Finally, 1 or several ingame counter that can be increase by 1 each time an event/condition/trigger is true; possibility to trigger events / condition when that counter reaches what the mission designer decides.

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, BlackDeath said:

we lack triggers that can be activated multiple times : unless I am wrong, once a trigger has been activated, we cannot use it again since it stays on by default.

Triggers only toggle state. They start as "off" by default. Activate them once, they are "on". Activate again, and they are turned "off" again. Do that as often as you like.

[Captain_Colossus]

more vigorously burning tanks without necessarily popping the turret- some vehicles like the bradley already burn like this, imagine the below screenshot as if the turret did not blow off but remained in a state of burning

 

 

 

 

[Kilo60]

I would love some additional and updated sounds!

 

Seems we still have the same flat audio and voices from the original SB...

[jstpasnthru]

I would like to see better AI.  AI is the true weakness of most single player games.  What I mean is this.  Units don't "talk" to each other as they do in real life.  You attack one AI platoon and the rest of its company just sits there like everything is fine.  There is no reaction.  The same with your own units when they are attacked or see enemy units.  Nor do they "hear" and react to nearby combat.  This is how we are able to to defeat a much larger force.  Simply pick them off one by one.   Setting conditions is a clumsy way of simulating AI.  It doesn't reflect reality.  So this game's value as a single player game is limited.  The developer should take a look at single player games with very good AI, where the entire enemy force reacts to a unit under attack.

 

I would also like to see unit statistics.  We should be able to see the composition of our forces before starting the game such as exactly which vehicles we have., then the statistics on that specific vehicle or weapon system.  All this info is already in the game.  Why not make it accessible?  What type of Leopards do I have?  What is the range of a TOW missile? 

 

Also, it would be nice to be presented with a table at the end of the battle showing what each unit killed, instead of having to gather that info by watching the entire replay.

 

But this is still the best military game out there!

Edited July 31, 2020 by jstpasnthru

[Gibsonm]

23 minutes ago, jstpasnthru said:

Also, it would be nice to be presented with a table at the end of the battle showing what each unit killed, instead of having to gather that info by watching the entire replay.

 

But this is still the best military game out there!

 

You may not be aware but there is a Report file (see page 145 of the Manual).

 

For me they are stored here: C:\Users\mark\Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\reports

 

A screenshot of part of it (I've attached a full copy):

 

 

CG20 Operation Dagger v2 for 4.162.sce_33_07-30-20_19_23_06.htm

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Gibsonm

[Lt DeFault]

7 hours ago, jstpasnthru said:

Units don't "talk" to each other as they do in real life.  You attack one AI platoon and the rest of its company just sits there like everything is fine.  There is no reaction.  The same with your own units when they are attacked or see enemy units.  Nor do they "hear" and react to nearby combat.

 

Behavior like that can be scripted in the mission editor. For example: you can have Unit A move to Unit B's position if Unit B's number drops too low. It can take a lot of time, so many scenario designers limit how much scripting they do. But the mission editor is very powerful - and a well scripted mission can surprise you.

[Bond_Villian]

The ability to 'tow' vehicles with helicopters (chinook etc).

[T-72]

I would like to add more drivable Soviet tanks in the future. For example, the more advanced T-72, or T-80 series, and gun launched missiles.😎

Edited August 12, 2020 by T-72

[ht-57]

I would ask for the ability for AI - FO to have the "ability/option" to call for fire missions on "single" units based on scenario designers intent.

I know its been said that irl it would be a waste to call a fire mission on a single unit but I digress, There are situations in sim where it could be utilized,

one example would be in multi player co-op mission where units have been divided for each person to control. another would be in sp where units have been divided  for micro management purposes, As It is now this situation could also be used to game the sim as you know ai isnt going to be calling fire missions on you if you divide units.

 It wasn't that long ago that it worked this way. perhaps pre 4.0 but it wasn't an option, If I recall the change was called a fix- any how it would be a viable "option"

to have on the support page for mission design.